Liberal Democrats Senator would vote to get rid of carbon tax

Updated
July 07, 2014 10:01:00

One of the new crossbenchers is Senator David Leyonhelm from the Liberal Democrats. He believes the budget is heading in the right direction, supports the abolition of the carbon tax, recommends fee-based immigration, and says it's debatable to what extent carbon emissions are driving climate change.

CHRIS UHLMANN: One of Senators is David Leyonhjelm from the Liberal Democrats.Welcome to AM.

DAVID LEYONHJELM: Thank you.

CHRIS UHLMANN: Now, David Leyonhjelm the dominant theme of the coverage of the new crossbenchers is that you're a pack of clowns that don't deserve to be here. How do you feel about that?

DAVID LEYONHJELM: Oh, well I hope we prove them wrong. I don't think we're a pack of clowns. As Bob Day said, we're very representative of Australian society, we're not former staffers and there's not too many lawyers amongst us and I think we'll acquit ourselves quite well.

CHRIS UHLMANN: Surely though, you have to admit that say for the fact that many people mistook your party, the Liberal Democrats for the Liberals you wouldn't be here?

DAVID LEYONHJELM: No, I don't accept that. I think that's a bit tough on New South Wales voters. You know, why are so many voters in New South Wales supposedly stupid and they're not stupid in any other states. We had a very high position in the other states as well on the ballot paper and I don't think New South Wales is stupid, I think they're very smart.

CHRIS UHLMANN: Now you're coming in at a time when the Government is desperately trying to pass its budget. Do you believe their basic premise that it needs to be repaired and that the current trajectory of spending is unsustainable?

DAVID LEYONHJELM: Yes I do. We've got a fiscal problem and it's an expenditure problem, it's not legitimate to raise taxes. Australia's taxes are already way too high. We have to bring our expenditure under control.

The budget is heading the right direction. You can quibble about individual items in it - and I do - but the overall direction is correct. In fact, in my opinion it's a bit timid. The day before the budget was released, we produced our own budget, it was printed in the Financial Review, and we showed it would've been possible to get the budget back into balance within two years, not..

CHRIS UHLMANN: How?

DAVID LEYONHJELM: With middle-class tax cuts and a cutting of middle-class welfare.

CHRIS UHLMANN: When you say middle-class tax cuts, can you be specific?

DAVID LEYONHJELM: Um, I can't remember the details now. If I had a bit of notice, I could tell you about it.

CHRIS UHLMANN: Alright, user pays fees, things like a co-payment on Medicare, do you agree with that?

DAVID LEYONHJELM: Yes I do. There is no such thing as free money from the Government. At the end of the day, everything that's paid for by the government is paid for by our fellow Australians and it's not legitimate to say well some things should be free when you can afford to pay. We already pay $36, $37 for pharmaceuticals, per prescription, and so to pay $7 for a visit to the doctor, I don't think is a big ask.

CHRIS UHLMANN: Now, the first order of business of course will be getting rid of the carbon tax. Why do you favour that?

DAVID LEYONHJELM: I do, yes, we've supported that for a long time. In fact, I'll vote to get rid of any tax. We think taxes are too high and so getting rid of the carbon tax is a no brainer for us.

CHRIS UHLMANN: Even if there is an environmental pay-off?

DAVID LEYONHJELM: Um, the issue of ah, of ah, global warming and carbon dioxide emissions and so forth, I mean, that's almost a separate thing. I don't think the carbon tax will do anything for emissions and neither will the Renewable Energy Target.

Australia, we have to be reasonably humble, I think. Australia is not a huge economy. When Brazil, Russia, India, China and America all decide to do something about carbon dioxide emissions..

CHRIS UHLMANN: But is there a problem?

DAVID LEYONHJELM: Is there a problem, with global warming?

CHRIS UHLMANN: Do you think there is a problem?

DAVID LEYONHJELM: Well, there certainly is an increase in carbon dioxide emissions, that's indisputable.

CHRIS UHLMANN: And that's driving global warming, do you think?

DAVID LEYONHJELM: How much effect it is... You can get into good debates about that, how much effect it's having on global warming, some people say it isn't, some say it is.

There is some global warming from time to time, although we've had a pause now for what is it, 17 years. But the scientists say, yes there is climate change, no question about it, the issue is, whether our emissions are driving it and I... um, you know, it really isn't- that's a scientific question, the political question, the economic question is, should Australia do anything that harms it's economy when the rest of the world is not doing very much at all?

CHRIS UHLMANN: And if the rest of the world takes the same approach and there is a problem then nothing will be done.

DAVID LEYONHJELM: Indeed that is, that's the case, yes.

Australia can't fix the problem by itself, that's the only thing.

CHRIS UHLMANN: What do make of the Government's policy of returning asylum seekers back to Sri-Lanka? Forty-one have been returned, the Government says that's the case this morning.

DAVID LEYONHJELM: Um, every country has the right to control its borders and decide who comes here, there's no question about that. So I think it's perfectly legitimate for the Government to say, you can't come in without our permission. I think that's legitimate.

This will probably start a long discussion but we have an entirely different model for immigration, we think that the front door should be open, but subject to a fee, and the condition of entry is that you can't get welfare until you become a citizen and like Japan and Switzerland and various other countries, citizenship should be less easily obtained than it is at the moment.

CHRIS UHLMANN: Briefly though, could a refugee, a genuine refugee afford a fee?

DAVID LEYONHJELM: A genuine refugee would still come in under our plan, but the onus would be on them to prove it, so that the de-facto situation at the moment is that they turn up, they don't have their papers and they say 'I'm a refugee' and we sort of have to try and work it out.